Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

I am of the understanding that the Christ all see in the Parousia will not reign on this Earth (unless it's briefly to set foot on the Mount of Olives per Zechariah 14:4),
and the 1,000 years is not to be taken literally (2 Peter 3:8).
There will be a New Earth (exceedingly larger, as the 12,000x12,0000 furlongs New Jerusalem
serves example) and a New Heaven (they will be One, no longer separated) and from there His
Reign is. This Earth will be destroyed. The former Heaven will spill out to us.
All will be new. Restoration of All Things.

The thousand-year kingdom reign is the thousand years mentioned at: Revelation chapter 20.
At the end of Jesus' reign, then Jesus hands back God's kingdom to God according to 1st Cor. 15 v 24.

Earth and heaven [ God's home ] are not at fault for the wickedness on earth. - Psalm 104 v 35
Please notice who remains on earth according to Proverbs 2 vs 21,22.

Please also notice the 3 heavens and 3 earths of 2nd Peter chapter 3.

At verse 5 we have the heavens and earth of OLD [ the heavens and earth of Noah's day were cleansed ]
The literal heavens and earth were Not destroyed but wicked and violent ones were destroyed.
At verse 7 we have the heavens and earth of NOW [ the heavens and earth since Noah's day to our day ]
At verse 9 we have the NEW heavens and earth where righteousness dwells. [ earth cleansed again ]
As righteousness was dwelling with Noah, and righteous mankind got a NEW start, with the coming words from Jesus' mouth [ Isaiah 11 vs 3,4; Revelation 19 vs 11,15 ] Jesus will get rid of, Not our planet, but get rid of the wicked and violent ones on planet earth.
The wicked are destroyed forever according to Psalm 92 v 7. 2nd Peter 3 v 7 B connects perdition [ destruction] of Not earth, but of the ungodly on earth.

Robertwr theorizes in the O.P. “The first resurrection is when a person is "born anew...born of the water and the Spirit" (John 3:3-5).”

JoJo-50 replied in post # 9 “I'm sorry but at ,(John 3:3-5), ISN'T referring to ANY Resurrection, Jesus was referring to being baptized “

I think Robertwr’s attempt to create and systematize a new Christian theory regarding "the first resurrection" will need more work. For example, I agree with JoJo-50 on this specific point. Robertwr’s premise is illogical and contextually inaccurate on this point. Thus, any conclusions based on this premise will be inaccurate and skewed by the faulty premise.

The early Christians would not have held to this theory that baptism was the first resurrection (though one can certainly connect the coming out of the water of baptism as a symbol of resurrection). Though such symbolic connections existed, in early judeo-christianity, the resurrection generally referred to the “re” (again) “surrection” (rising up) of a re-united body and spirit such as happened to Jesus' spirit and body (as well as to many of the saints who arose and appeared to many) at the time of Jesus' resurrection after his body had lain in the tomb for three days.

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Matt 27:52–53 kjv) These saints whose spirits were being re-united with their bodies, and who went into Jerusalem and appeared to and talked with others in the early traditions had undergone the first resurrection.

Clear
ειφιφιδρω

I don't believe that the description of Matthew 27:52-53 is a reference to the First resurrection that is referred to in Revelations. Are you implying that it is?

trettep asked in post # 32" I don't believe that the description of Matthew 27:52-53 is a reference to the First resurrection that is referred to in Revelations. Are you implying that it is? "

Hi trettep :

I am not sure what reference you are speaking of in Revelations. Initially, I was not consciously referring to any other reference than John 3:3-5.

Robertwr claimed that John 3:3-5, being "born of the water and the spirit" was the "first resurrection". Then, JoJo-50 offered the opinion that John 3:3-5 referred to water baptism and not resurrection.

My first post was to support JoJo-50's opinion that John 3:3-5 referred to water baptism and not resurrection. This was when I gave the opinion that the first resurrection of any individuals in early Christian tradition was after the death and resurrection of Jesus and offered Matt 27:52-53 as what was, in my opinion, the first recorded resurrection of individuals other than Jesus in early Christian tradition. That is, that once God the Father, resurrected Jesus, this is the first recorded resurrection of any other individuals according to early Christian tradition.

This is where we departed into Matthew 4:4's theory that it was dead and decaying bodies that were tossed out of their graves and ended up in Jerusalem and "appeared to many".

I did not have any other reference or context in mind in making my statements. I hope clarification was helpful.

The bible tells us what the First Resurrection is. "This is the First Resurrection (Rev 20:4+5)" after the Tribulation.
1. Cor 15:23+24 tells us there are 3 resurrections. Christ and the OT saints the First Fruits. Than the main resurrection of the saints of the NT that died in Christ and God will bring with Him at Christ second coming after the Tribulation and at the end after 1000 years the rest of the dead from Adam till the end of the Millennium.

Zur pointed out in post #34 : The bible tells us what the First Resurrection is. "This is the First Resurrection (Rev 20:4+5)" after the Tribulation. 1. Cor 15:23+24 tells us there are 3 resurrections. Christ and the OT saints the First Fruits. Than the main resurrection of the saints of the NT that died in Christ and God will bring with Him at Christ second coming after the Tribulation and at the end after 1000 years the rest of the dead from Adam till the end of the Millennium. "

Hi Zur :

I appreciate the extra information your post offered in the context of there being multiple resurrections. For me personally, the historical difficulty in certain interpretations actually lies in the context and language, all of which is different for each of us. Since my interest lies mainly in peri-c.e. era christian tradition and their early texts, I will, necessarily view things differently.

Historical Context :
For example, numerically, the actual FIRST resurrection in early Christian tradition was that of Jesus after his decensus. The Early Judeo-Christian traditions then have those O.T. saints (as Zur called them) leaving hades/sheol and resurrecting in the same manner as the sons of rabbi Simeon (though this text doesn’t tell us if ALL in hades resurrected or just certain ones....).

Language context :
Often, the greek root words you english speakers read are translated quite correctly yet still had different meanings to the ancient who used these words. In this case, the greek words often translated for “first” or “before” (e.g. πρωτοσ and πρωτωσ and πριν, “προ...” etc.) have strict temporal and numeric meanings in our time and in english yet have different meanings anciently and in greek.. “First resurrection” is a good example.

For example, Revelations 20:5 “The rest of the dead come to life until the thousand years ended. This is the first resurrection and blessed are the saints that have part in the first resurrection.” (Gk Οι λοιποι των νεκρων εζησαν αχρι τελεσθη τα χιλια ετη. Αυτη η αναστασισ η πρωτη. 6 Μακαροισ και αγιοσ ο εχων μεροσ εν τη αναστασει τη πρωτη.”

While πρωτη in both sentences can be rendered “first”, in greek context is it often indicating primarily a “numeric” or “temporal” meaning.

Acts 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city (πρωτησ μεριδοσ) of the district..., some versions render this as “leading city”. Since the word πρωτησ means “first” (as a form of protos) and is the same word used in Revelations 20:5 to describe the “first” [resurrection], the sentence is just as correctly rendered : Philippi, which is the first city of the district...” The best and most honorable and most desirable things were often described by using combining them with this word, “first” (πρωτοσ)

The “place of honor” at the feasts in Matt 23:6 is the word PROTOklisian (ΠΡΩΤΟκλισιαν or “first” seats), the “best” seats in the same verse are the PROTOkathedrias (ΠΡΩΤΟκαθεδριασ or “first” chairs). This usage of such words and meaning are quite consistent and thus when Luke speaks of the “places of honor” in 14:7-8, he uses the word PROTOklesias (FIRST seats) in both cases. The scribes loved the “best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor”. These seats and places were described as PROTOkathedras (ΠΡΩΤΟκαθεδρασ - “FIRST chairs) and PROTOklisias (ΠΡΩΤΟκλισιασ FIRST seats) respectively.

Just as we call the best violinist in an orchestra, the “first chair”, and the next best as “second chair”, the greeks used such terms as well. “Prime meat” is not necessarily the “first” meat off the cow, but the “best” meat. “First fruits” were not necessarily the first fruit from a tree, but the “best” fruit from a tree. “Number one” is the captain, and “Number two” is the next in rank..

John, in saying that “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was “before me” (ΠΡΟΤΟΣ μου ην). (Jn 1:15) Though Jesus may have existed before John, the translator sees the context and places the word into a context of value and rank, rather than in a temporal context. Such contexts and nuances of meaning are not as apparent in english translations. When Jesus claims to be “before abraham” in John 8:58, is he talking simply about simply existing before abraham or is he claiming to be abrahams “chief” or “superior”? Which claim would have most likely enraged these jews to “[pick] up stones to throw at him” (vs59)?

If Jesus’ resurrection and any who might have resurrected just after him as in early christian traditions were the FIRST (numerically) resurrection, then does the “first” resurrection (αναστασει τη ΠΡΩΤΗ) mentioned in Revelations 20 refer to FIRST in a temporal context, or in the context of TYPE, RANK or QUALITY? When Revelations mentions that those in this “first” resurrection are “blessed”, are they blessed because their resurrection is “sooner” than others, or of a different “type” than others?

My point is NOT that the early christian traditions that describe the resurrection of saints at the time of Jesus’ resurrection is correct or incorrect, but merely that the word “first” is not to be simply assumed to have a numerical or temporal meaning when one is transferring the word from a greek language and from a time and place having different symbol sets.

Good luck in coming to your own conclusions and convictions on these issues Zur and others.

I am at work and am interrupted by appointments but the thought occurred to me that I had forgotten to add another other context under a label of RELIGIOUS and SECULAR USE OF PROTOS, and that is the Koine itself and the use of terms such as Protos (πρωτοσ) outside the bible so as to make the point that “first” was OFTEN used to indicate rank, type, quality, etc.

For example, it was Abbot who rendered the phrase in john 1:15 as “my chief” specifically due to this common contextual usage of Protos (πρωτοσ) and Ramsay had long ago shown that the πρωτη (“first”, or “leading” or “chief” district) in Acts 16:12 was not a reference to being geographically “first”, but as a political reference. He demonstrated clearly that the “chief” city was in reference to the rivalries of Greek cities as to which would be designated “first” or “chief” in their districts. Even in it’s connotations for evil such as Acts 24:5, Protos as used in “ring leader” (“πρωτοστατησ”) is in the context of rank and quality rather than having a numerical or temporal meaning. Dittenberger, in the Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, offers several examples of the early usage of this specific word root in the sense of the “highest class” (syll 523/578 are approx ii b.c. era usages).

My point is that this common usage of protos as “first” as a reference to rank is not merely “bible-speak”, but it was part of the koine greek itself, whether in religious OR secular usage.

I am at work and am interrupted by appointments but the thought occurred to me that I had forgotten to add another other context under a label of RELIGIOUS and SECULAR USE OF PROTOS, and that is the Koine itself and the use of terms such as Protos (πρωτοσ) outside the bible so as to make the point that “first” was OFTEN used to indicate rank, type, quality, etc.

For example, it was Abbot who rendered the phrase in john 1:15 as “my chief” specifically due to this common contextual usage of Protos (πρωτοσ) and Ramsay had long ago shown that the πρωτη (“first”, or “leading” or “chief” district) in Acts 16:12 was not a reference to being geographically “first”, but as a political reference. He demonstrated clearly that the “chief” city was in reference to the rivalries of Greek cities as to which would be designated “first” or “chief” in their districts. Even in it’s connotations for evil such as Acts 24:5, Protos as used in “ring leader” (“πρωτοστατησ”) is in the context of rank and quality rather than having a numerical or temporal meaning. Dittenberger, in the Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, offers several examples of the early usage of this specific word root in the sense of the “highest class” (syll 523/578 are approx ii b.c. era usages).

Hi Clear lens,
I agree with you that Rev 20:4+5 is the main resurrection, namely the NT saints, which is a multitude out of every nation and language. That Jesus resurrection and the "OT saints" was the first one is also clear to me. Paul calls it the First fruits, he refers to an harvest, then the main resurrection is at Christ second coming (singular) and the end is, says Rev 20:4+5 1000 years later, which would be the gleanings. I do not believe that the resurrection at the end is only a resurrection of the lost as it is today preached. The Jews believed in 3 places where the dead go, there where the righteous and the wicked, their judgement is final for good or evil, and then the ones that where between, which will be judged at the end according to their works. Only the ones that were not found in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire, that gives room to believe, that some of them will be gathered into the barn as wheat. What did the early Christians believe?

My point is that this common usage of protos as “first” as a reference to rank is not merely “bible-speak”, but it was part of the koine greek itself, whether in religious OR secular usage.

Earth and heaven [ God's home ] are not at fault for the wickedness on earth. - Psalm 104 v 35
Please notice who remains on earth according to Proverbs 2 vs 21,22.

Please also notice the 3 heavens and 3 earths of 2nd Peter chapter 3.

At verse 5 we have the heavens and earth of OLD [ the heavens and earth of Noah's day were cleansed ]
The literal heavens and earth were Not destroyed but wicked and violent ones were destroyed.
At verse 7 we have the heavens and earth of NOW [ the heavens and earth since Noah's day to our day ]
At verse 9 we have the NEW heavens and earth where righteousness dwells. [ earth cleansed again ]
As righteousness was dwelling with Noah, and righteous mankind got a NEW start, with the coming words from Jesus' mouth [ Isaiah 11 vs 3,4; Revelation 19 vs 11,15 ] Jesus will get rid of, Not our planet, but get rid of the wicked and violent ones on planet earth.
The wicked are destroyed forever according to Psalm 92 v 7. 2nd Peter 3 v 7 B connects perdition [ destruction] of Not earth, but of the ungodly on earth.

Note, verse 5 heaven and earth of old cannot refer to Noah`s flood, because only the earth was cleansed, not the heavens. Satan still sits on his throne in the second heaven and will be thrown to earth 3 1/2 years before Jesus returns. Heaven and earth refers to Gen 1:2 where earth and heaven perished completely by water.

Isn't Scripture [ Christian literature ] stating that Jesus is first born from the dead [ 1st to be resurrected ] ?

Didn't Jesus teach [John 3 v 13 ] No one ascended before him?

Even King David did not ascend.- Acts 2 v 34

Neither did faithful John the Baptist. - Matthew 11 v 11

So, there is No way those saints [ holy ones] had an earlier first resurrection before Jesus.

The earlier or first resurrection is mentioned in connection to the Lord's Day [ Revelation 1 v 10 ] mentioned at Rev. 20 v 6 not earlier than that.

Also, Matthew does not write all of the saints [holy ones ] were raised up, but wrote Many bodies.....
Those called to heaven are Not resurrected in a visible physical body, but like Jesus resurrected in a spirit [ invisible ] body.
That is why Jesus used different materialized bodies after his resurrection [ and before his ascension ] to heaven.

The ones who went forth from the memorial tombs, they then would have to be the living ones who entered the city because Matthew is not contradicting Scripture.

Jesus was not resurrected in an invisible body, neither the "OT saints" which were seen. Jesus said to His disciples that He was not a Spirit, He had flesh and bones with His marks of crucifixion, His body was not from dust, but heavenly material, different of ours, but visible.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.